Reed v. NCO Portfolio Management et al

Filing 20

ORDER granting 11 Motion to Dismiss; granting 14 Motion to Dismiss; granting 19 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Arthur J Tarnow. (TTay)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ULYSSES D. REED, Plaintiff, v. NCO PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT, CITIBANK, and 36TH DISTRICT COURT, Defendants. / ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS [11, 14, 19] AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT Before the court are the three motions to dismiss, filed by each of the defendants. Plaintiff Reed has not responded. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), the court will decide this motion on the briefs. The 36th District Court, as an "arm of the state," is protected from suit by state-sovereign immunity and the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. See S.J. v. Hamilton County, Ohio, 374 F.3d 416, 421-422 (6th Cir. 2004) ("Such courts are the adjudicative voice of the state itself. That is particularly true in the context of a court system that, like Ohio's, is mandated by the state constitution to be uniform and to be supervised by one supreme court") (dictum) (citations and quotation marks omitted). This court lacks jurisdiction over the complaint as to the two remaining defendants, because of the Rooker­Feldman doctrine. Reed's complaint in substance challenges the default judgment entered against him in state court. The source of his injury is the state court's decision, which he, in the end, invites this court to review. Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction. Lawrence v. Welch, 531 F.3d 361, 368 (6th Cir. 2008). The motions to dismiss are GRANTED. The complaint is DISMISSED. Case No. 08-12140 Honorable Arthur J. Tarnow

SO ORDERED.

S/ARTHUR J. TARNOW Arthur J. Tarnow United States District Judge Dated: January 26, 2009 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on January 26, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. S/THERESA E. TAYLOR Case Manager Dated: Arthur J. Tarnow United States District Judge

-2-